July 2011 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-project] Mocketry?

by Dennis Schetinin

Yes, you can write it this way: SomeTests >> testXXX [:mock1 :mock2 | [mock1 someMessage. mock2 someMessage2] should strictly satisfy: [mock1 someMessage willReturn: 'some'. mock2 someMessage2] ] runScenario 2011/7/19 Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com> > > Dennis Schetinin wrote: > > > > It means you can just run Mocketry tests with SUnit test runner > > > > I mean how does one use mocks specifically with SUnit. For example, from > the > HelpBook: > > [:mock1 :mock2 | [mock1 someMessage. mock2 someMessage2] > should strictly satisfy: > [mock1 someMessage willReturn: 'some'. > mock2 someMessage2]] > runScenario > > Where do I put that? Drop the whole thing including the #runScenario into a > #testXxx or what? > > Thanks. > Sean > > -- > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/Mocketry-tp3555258p3677175.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > -- Dennis Schetinin

July 19, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Mocketry?

by Sean P. DeNigris

Dennis Schetinin wrote: > > It means you can just run Mocketry tests with SUnit test runner > I mean how does one use mocks specifically with SUnit. For example, from the HelpBook: [:mock1 :mock2 | [mock1 someMessage. mock2 someMessage2] should strictly satisfy: [mock1 someMessage willReturn: 'some'. mock2 someMessage2]] runScenario Where do I put that? Drop the whole thing including the #runScenario into a #testXxx or what? Thanks. Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Mocketry-tp3555258p3677175.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

July 19, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Mocketry?

by Dennis Schetinin

It means you can just run Mocketry tests with SUnit test runner, no modifications needed. Just as with "ordinary" tests, all verifications are performed "at place": SomeObjectTests >> testDoesSomething * 2 + 2 should equal: 4. *"Here it passes" * 2 + 2 should equal: 5. *"Here it fails" "Nothing else is needed" â¦Or, did I misunderstood your question? 2011/7/19 Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com> > I read that Mocketry is compatible with the SUnit test runner. How would > one > use it like this? call #verify at the end of a TestCaseSubclass>>testXxx? > > Thanks. > Sean > > -- > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/Mocketry-tp3555258p3676822.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > -- Dennis Schetinin

July 19, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Mocketry?

by Sean P. DeNigris

I read that Mocketry is compatible with the SUnit test runner. How would one use it like this? call #verify at the end of a TestCaseSubclass>>testXxx? Thanks. Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Mocketry-tp3555258p3676822.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

July 18, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Stubbing class-side methods

by Sean P. DeNigris

Igor Stasenko wrote: > > you doing something really complex. > on your place i would just implement #dateAndTimeClass > I'm playing :) And, working on ideas for our testing frameworks. Partially stubbing class-side methods is something I miss from rspec in Ruby (although in this case adding one #dateAndTimeClass method is not a huge deal) Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Stubbing-class-side-methods-tp3674065p3676800.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

July 18, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Stubbing class-side methods

by Igor Stasenko

On 19 July 2011 01:02, Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com> wrote: > Ah, so the lookups are done once when the method is compiled and then stored > in the CompiledMethod... > > My vision is to write something like: > Â Â Â Â cannedNow := DateAndTime stub: #now; andReturn: [ DateAndTime year: 2011 > month: 12 day: 24 hour: 12 minute: 34 second: 55 ]. > Â Â Â Â testableClass := MyClass usingDouble: cannedNow. > > The first line seems easy, and for the second line, I have so far (very > rough, but working): > > Â Â Â Â | class copy | > Â Â Â Â class := MyClass. > Â Â Â Â copy := MyClass copy. > > Â Â Â Â copy methods do: [ :m | | classRef | > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â (m hasLiteralSuchThat: [ :l | ((l isKindOf: Association) and: [ l key = > #DateAndTime])]) > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â ifTrue: [ | newMeth refIndex | > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â newMeth := copy methodDictionary at: m selector put: m copy. > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â refIndex := newMeth indexOfLiteralSuchThat: [ :l | ((l isKindOf: > Association) and: [ l key = #DateAndTime])]. > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â newMeth literalAt: refIndex put: #DateAndTime->MockedClass ] ]. > Â Â Â Â ^ copy. > > Where CompiledMethod>>indexOfLiteralSuchThat: aBlock > Â Â Â Â "Answer the literal index of the argument, literal, or zero if none." > Â Â Â Â 2 to: self numLiterals - 1 "exclude superclass + selector/properties" > Â Â Â Â Â do: > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â [:index | > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â (aBlock value: (self objectAt: index)) ifTrue: [^index - 1]]. > Â Â Â Â ^0 > you doing something really complex. on your place i would just implement #dateAndTimeClass so, you can just write self dateAndTimeClass new and depending on implementor it would answer one or another class. > Thanks again. > Sean > > > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Stubbing-class-side-methods-tp3674065p3676637.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

July 18, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Stubbing class-side methods

by Sean P. DeNigris

Ah, so the lookups are done once when the method is compiled and then stored in the CompiledMethod... My vision is to write something like: cannedNow := DateAndTime stub: #now; andReturn: [ DateAndTime year: 2011 month: 12 day: 24 hour: 12 minute: 34 second: 55 ]. testableClass := MyClass usingDouble: cannedNow. The first line seems easy, and for the second line, I have so far (very rough, but working): | class copy | class := MyClass. copy := MyClass copy. copy methods do: [ :m | | classRef | (m hasLiteralSuchThat: [ :l | ((l isKindOf: Association) and: [ l key = #DateAndTime])]) ifTrue: [ | newMeth refIndex | newMeth := copy methodDictionary at: m selector put: m copy. refIndex := newMeth indexOfLiteralSuchThat: [ :l | ((l isKindOf: Association) and: [ l key = #DateAndTime])]. newMeth literalAt: refIndex put: #DateAndTime->MockedClass ] ]. ^ copy. Where CompiledMethod>>indexOfLiteralSuchThat: aBlock "Answer the literal index of the argument, literal, or zero if none." 2 to: self numLiterals - 1 "exclude superclass + selector/properties" do: [:index | (aBlock value: (self objectAt: index)) ifTrue: [^index - 1]]. ^0 Thanks again. Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Stubbing-class-side-methods-tp3674065p3676637.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

July 18, 2011

[Pharo-project] Why does CompiledMethod>>hasLiteral: use ==

by Sean P. DeNigris

I tried: aMethod hasLiteral: #DateAndTime->DateAndTime and got false, even though an "=" literal is indeed there. Why doesn't #hasLiteral: use #=? Thanks. Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Why-does-CompiledMethod-hasLiteral-use-tp3676573p3676… Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

July 18, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] fun bug: fileouting method with a $!, produces $!!

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

But I cannot recompile the method I fileout. Can you? May be this is because I did not use the filelist and I copied and pasted from the file veronica sent me. > this is not because people were not using a decent syntax to fileout and that after they hacked the system that this is not a bug. > Yes, it is by no way meant to be human written and does not decently meet the requirements for scripting. > For exchanging code, the chunk format is a bit poor too, but it is manageable with a good change list tool (not the squeak one). > And remember, it was (and is still) used for logging system changes in the change log. > And it is very efficient for that. > With chunk format, you don't need quoting the code (except exclamation mark itself of course), and that's an important feature > IMO, this format served its purpose very decently. > Well, you can tell me the Squeak hacks to identify authors and timestamp are awfully implemented, I can only agree, but the basis are very simple. TSTTCPW. I think that it would deserve a new pass. Because "very simple" is not true when you look at the complexity = invoking the scanner to get some information and then poking around to know if this is a comment or a class definition. > But you can. > You can browse the code, can't you ? go and see in .sources or .changes, you'll see a doubled ! > You can fileOut, then fileIn, no problem. I spent some days a couple of year ago in the filein fileout because I wanted to load all the code of squeak starting from sq10 -> 3.9 and I can tell you that the allButLast first .... kind of expressions to skip over ' or ! to me indicate a problem because saving a element of program should not be like that and this is why the format of the fileout is not good. Of course it works but it does not mean that this is good. Stef

July 18, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] [update 1.3] #13287

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

I'm happy. I think that we found a good solution. On Jul 18, 2011, at 9:44 PM, Tudor Girba wrote: > Thanks a lot! > > Glamour works on Seaside out of the box again :) > > Cheers, > Doru > > > On 18 Jul 2011, at 20:44, Lukas Renggli wrote: > >> Great, thank you for the quick fix. >> >> On Monday, 18 July 2011, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: >>> >>> 13287 >>> ----- >>> >>> - Issue 4528: Exception on:fork: enhancement. Thanks Igor Stasenko and Lukas Renggli for the idea. >>> >>> - Issue 4529: Announcement delivery breaks if last subscriber is curtailed. Thanks Henrik Johanssen. >>> >> >> -- >> Lukas Renggli >> www.lukas-renggli.ch >> > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "Some battles are better lost than fought." > > > >

July 18, 2011